-1 from my side. At least the territory win conditions rely on the possibility to attack as attacking military sites is currently the only possibility to get a bigger territory.

I think this a wrong assumption. Territorial win conditions rely on the territory one has owned, not to the one who pinched it from the opponent. The one who expand his territory very fast will win the game. I have to admit that i am not very familiar with those winconditions though :-S

Both is possible. Not only peaceful expansion (which can be rather boring), but also fighting for territory.

einstein13 wrote:
We have wood gnome, which can be from default "peaceful".

Wood gnome is also interesting if it's not peaceful. Just saying...

stonerl wrote:

What about bonus-malus? For example malus for each defeated building and kills. Bonus for lost buildings and casualties.

That would be something else. It could not replace a peaceful mode, but it could be interesting. Even though it's a little bit macabre to gain points for sending many soldiers into the death.

EgyLynx wrote:

Well... even select not capture mode at these Ai them try capture these whose weaker than them... ?

I don't understand you. It would be nice if you would write a sentence which could be understood.

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

After playing a round of Wood Gnome with WorldSavior, the idea for a peaceful mode rises up (again).

Except the win condition 'Autocrat' every other wincondition should not allow attacking a foreign military site. This would focus the mind to the chosen wincondition. Otherwise, if attacking is allowed, one can play just like autocrat and will mostly win the game. I think this is not what is wanted.

Peaceful mode sounds like a good option to my ears, too. At least with wood gnome and collectors.

Of the rest I am less certain. It certainly would not make sense to send warnings like "Your opponent has >50% land. Act now or you lose" or so, if playing territorial ĺord in peaceful mode. What would you do? Use diplomacy to make the enemy retreat?

It certainly would not make sense to send warnings like "Your opponent has >50% land. Act now or you lose" or so, if playing territorial ĺord in peaceful mode. What would you do? Use diplomacy to make the enemy retreat?

Good point. So in peaceful mode, there shouldn't be such a warning. (Territorial time and territorial lord)

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

I´m against having an option with such an arbitrary rule (2 hours) in the game setup screen. This rule can also be scripted into win conditions using the new Player.forbid_attack method though.

But I believe that it would lead to players building massive armies on their borders and then launching a huge attack as soon as the clock shows 2:00:00. Personally, I don´t think this would make for interesting gameplay…

The 2 hour mark was just an arbitrary number I chose. AFAIK such an option is available in Age of Empires, not sure if the time can be chosen freely, though.

OK, this could be done by replacing the (only just introduced) checkbox with a spinner or dropdown that defines how long peace is enforced, from 0 (normal) to Eternity (truly peaceful) with steps like 10 minutes (like the AI), 30 min, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3.5 hours (for an interesting spin near the end of time-limited win conditions), 4 hours, 8 hours, and something really late like 24 hours.

Still not convinced that it would be worth implementing, but should not be too hard to code (but not by me, I have had enough of the super-complex ui_fsmenu codeflow for a while )

This rule can also be scripted into win conditions using the new Player.forbid_attack method though.

But a new win condition needs to be created for this. Which is a lot of unnecessary code if I just want to play e.g. territorial time with such an attack limit.

Or you could put this into a starting condition, which could hack into wl.Game() to set this for all players…

I´m against having an option with such an arbitrary rule (2 hours) in the game setup screen.

I'm not against it. It's not like the game setup screen is too crowded.

But I believe that it would lead to players building massive armies on their borders and then launching a huge attack as soon as the clock shows 2:00:00. Personally, I don´t think this would make for interesting gameplay…

For me it sounds interesting

Nordfriese wrote:

The 2 hour mark was just an arbitrary number I chose. AFAIK such an option is available in Age of Empires, not sure if the time can be chosen freely, though.

OK, this could be done by replacing the (only just introduced) checkbox with a spinner or dropdown that defines how long peace is enforced, from 0 (normal) to Eternity (truly peaceful) with steps like 10 minutes (like the AI), 30 min, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3.5 hours (for an interesting spin near the end of time-limited win conditions), 4 hours, 8 hours, and something really late like 24 hours.

Good ideas

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan